On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 06.06.2016 23:58, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05.06.2016 08:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first
On 06.06.2016 23:58, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 05.06.2016 08:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first
image's dims. The width0/height0/depth0 on stObj may not have been set
at this point.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> On 05.06.2016 08:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>> In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first
>> image's dims. The width0/height0/depth0 on stObj may not have been set
>> at this point. Observed in a trace that set up
On 05.06.2016 08:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first
image's dims. The width0/height0/depth0 on stObj may not have been set
at this point. Observed in a trace that set up levels 2..9 of a 2d texture,
and set the base level to 2, with hei
In the case where we can't guess the base level size, just use the first
image's dims. The width0/height0/depth0 on stObj may not have been set
at this point. Observed in a trace that set up levels 2..9 of a 2d texture,
and set the base level to 2, with height 1. This made the guess logic
always ba
